And "liberal" isn't a bad word... it gets used that way by the more ignorant of the conservative right (some might say facist). "Liberal" in politics means open to change or progress, whereas "conservative" means wanting to maintain the status quo and resist change.

The hard-lined conservatives of the Republican party can't point their fingers and say, "communist bastard" anymore, so they substitute "liberal." All that really is accomplished is a demonstration of gullibility level.

While change for the sake of change may not be good, there seems little doubt that change is necessary for progress. Someone once said that "all progress begins from an unpopular idea." That may or may not be true, but I would suggest to you that many of the institutions and ideas that we take for granted today where once opposed by hard-lined conservatives.

So a happy median is to be a conservative democrat or a liberal republican. Instead, we have a hard-lined, right-winged, neo-conservative (their self description) group puppeteering the President of the United States. I for one do not agree with allowing someone that is willing to allow themselves to be bought and paid for by groups like the Christian Coalition, Religious Right, and corporations like Haliburton.

the story itself isn't that damning of bush, as far as i can tell. but it does bug me the way "liberal" is used as a dirty word by smallminded people who can't accept that anyone might disagree with them.

Like a lot of things, the best bet is usually a nice balance between new and old... which is likely why a basic liberal vs conservative setup has appeared in pretty much every democracy on the planet. It is when one side gets too powerful that the whole thing goes to hell...

I live in the United Kingdom, and after having studied American politics for the last two years, one of the many things I have noticed that underlines the polarised nature of the two systems, is the use of the word "liberal."

In this country, liberalism is generally seen as a good thing, and even those more conservative among the population do not scorn or "bash" people for being liberal. It's just, for want of a better term, a "word" to British people. Hell, even Margaret Thatcher (one of the most right-wing Prime Ministers we have ever had) equated herself with "neo-liberalism" - not exactly liberalism, but she wasn't afraid to use the word.

However, in America, it seems that this "word" is more of an insult than a description of someone's political persuasion. It is, to all intents and purposes, a bad word, and if you're liberal, you're clearly different from everyone else.

This obvious difference in definition between the UK and USA is probably down to the very nature of politics within both the countries. American politics, in general, is quite a bit further to the right than British politics. Our Conservative Party would probably be seen as more left-wing than your average Democrat. You may say, "hang on, British politics isn't particularly left-wing." This is certainly true, and the last decade or so has seen a world-wide move to the right, but still, everything is relative - and the US is typically more conservative than the UK, and most other European countries.

But "liberal" and "liberalism" are terms that get thrown around far too much. It makes me laugh when people refer to Kerry as "the liberal from Massachusetts." By my definition, Kerry is far from being a liberal. In my book, he's pretty far to the right, maybe not as far as Bush, but a kind of "Bush lite" if you will.

I don't think much can be done to change the perception people have of "liberals" in the USA, but it's self evident that word has been taken completely out of context, and is so far removed from its proper definition that it's probably not even worth trying to get people to understand the true meaning of the word. And even if that did happen, most of the world's narrow-minded citizens would still see it as a "bad thing," as in our Western, capitalist culture, the majority of people aren't open to change.

It's ashame really, as right now, the whole world's going to hell, and conservatives are at the centre of it all...

the story itself isn't that damning of bush, as far as i can tell. but it does bug me the way "liberal" is used as a dirty word by smallminded people who can't accept that anyone might disagree with them.

I merely refer liberals as Democrats... nothing more, nothing less...

Quote:

I think it's interesting whenever evidence comes up that puts a bad light on the current administration Bush supporters pass it off as another "Bush bashing" thread.

I think it's interesting that you may not have noticed that it eventually evolves into Bush bashing.

And for the record I'd thank you all very much to remember that there are several steps on the ladder between 'liberal' and 'commie'. Some people (none named, none forgotten) seem to think that liberalism is some radical left-wing kind of thing. They'd do well to remember that in some parts of the world, 'liberal' is right-wing.

I nominate Kain for prez. He's planning to take over the world anyways, and Selene would make a cool first lady. And yes, The Kain presidency would probably be more legitimate than the Bush administration anyways

Flamewar? That wasn't a flame war, or at least I've seen more intense ones...

Quote:

Originally posted by ET WarriorTypically only because The Bush supporters come in and give excuses to try and blame away the truth.

And yet, what is this?

Quote:

Originally posted by KainHail to the Chief indeed.

That is one small example of Bush-bashing, is it not? And that post wasn't even a reply to anything, as you say, "blame away from the truth." And there's more Bush-bashing that you may not have cared to see, and that's an example of your "blaming away from the truth." Now let's let that discussion end and stay on topic.

Quote:

The Kain presidency would probably be more legitimate than the Bush administration anyways

Yeah, anyone who's his enemy will get on his Secret Service's hit list, and he'll become a dictator, ooh that's so legitimate.

Originally posted by Kain Besides, dictators have rather...violent ends. My rule will be more towards anarchy. I'll just have lots and lots of armed guards with no sense of right or wrong, just blind obidience.

Of course, in anarchy they could just scheme up a plan to kill you and then divide the loot.

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Originally posted by Kain
Hail to the Chief indeed.
That is one small example of Bush-bashing, is it not? ... And there's more Bush-bashing that you may not have cared to see, and that's an example of your "blaming away from the truth." Now let's let that discussion end and stay on topic.

The topic is, "The White House is Blowing it [a.k.a. screwin' it up]." Like MennoniteHobbit suggested, we should keep it on topic. If true, then there is reason to "bash" Bush, however....

One thing that I've noted: Bush supporters get upset and cry foul when Bush is "bashed," and the implication by some is that there is a high amount of "Bush bashing" going on in this forum.

That may be.

But if it's true, then the logical question might be, "why?" Why do so many people "bash" Bush? My answer: there is significant dissatisfaction with the Bush admin's performance, character, and loyalties in the Whitehouse. Unlike the Republican adminstration of Reagan, Bush's loyalties seem to be to his supporters and pals first. In fact, he's made statements that support this notion such as, "if you're not with us, you're for the terrorists." The implications of that are pretty clear. Those critical of the Bush administration are considered enemies of the state by the admin. The link I put in the "Bush Pro's and Con's" thread the other day gives more support to this notion. Reagan on the other hand, was extremely patriotic and thought of the nation first and individuals of the elite second.

Bush tries hard to emulate Reagan (going off to the ranch, blows his own horn about so-called economic successes, etc.), but he falls dramatically short. In fact, Bush seems more like a Nixon Republican than a Reagan one.

The man we really need in the Whitehouse is John McCain. Perhaps if we can get a regime change now with Kerry, then McCain can get on the Republican ticket in 2008 after the party goes through some much needed house cleaning (getting rid of the fascist element of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.). If Bush is re-elected, the country might find itself in ruin by the time McCain gets his chance.

Fire the Liar, elect Kerry in November!

Until then, Bash away, bash away, bash away all!But only in regards to non-members per the Lucasforums rules. And George W. Bush does not appear to be a member. Nor does Kerry.

I think it would be deliciously ironic if Bush was a closet star wars freak and was a random member on these forums, and we were inadvertently breaking forum rules by ripping on him in these threads

Quote:

*this* is the kickass ET I respect and admire..... cool !

*hugs ET*

I do what I can.... [/modest]

On topic, I think the fact that there are THAT many people that rank/ranked so highly in the American Government/military who want Bush ousted speaks volumes. I'm with Skinwalker on this (as I have been all along). Fire the Liar.

That's pretty catchy...I kinda want to put it on a bumper sticker, but then I'd just have to remove it after november, what a hassle

Originally posted by SkinWalker And "liberal" isn't a bad word... it gets used that way by the more ignorant of the conservative right (some might say fascist)

Well Fascism, as defined in Webster's New World Dictionary is defined as:

Quote:

a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc...

In what way is that related to the Republican Party or conservatism?

Yes, the term "liberal" does mean open to change or progress, and conservative does mean tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any change in these.

By your explanation though, you’re implying that not only are the conservatives opposed to all change, but also that the liberals are open to all change. That simply is not the case. The terms merely represent that, generally, the liberals are open to change in certain areas and the conservatives are opposed to change in those areas.

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker So a happy median is to be a conservative democrat or a liberal republican.

So basically that already exists. The opinions differ on both sides on what should be changed, and how, and what should be left alone.

Also, the term “conservative” can, likewise, be thrown around in a negative light, and has even been done on this board. People from both sides can look at either word as negative or positive based on their beliefs. Some one who is liberal might not consider that word to be a derogatory representation of their beliefs and opinions.

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker I for one do not agree with allowing someone that is willing to allow themselves to be bought and paid for by groups like the Christian Coalition, Religious Right, and corporations like Haliburton.

Here you’re implying that President Bush didn’t already agree with their stances and merely changed his opinions and actions to garner their support.

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker Fire the Liar.

Specifically, what do you believe he lied about that has led you to believe that he should be fired?

Quote:

Originally posted by The_One It makes me laugh when people refer to Kerry as "the liberal from Massachusetts." By my definition, Kerry is far from being a liberal. In my book, he's pretty far to the right, maybe not as far as Bush, but a kind of "Bush lite" if you will.

I’m not totally sure, but by your wording it sounds like your “liberal” represents America’s “conservative” and your “conservative” would likewise represent America’s “liberal”. If so, that’s another example of the interchangeability of the terms based on what both sides believe should and should not be changed.

On the topic of “Bush Bashing”:

Quote:

Originally posted by ET Warrior Typically only because The Bush supporters come in and give excuses to try and blame away the truth.

People in the John Kerry thread(s) come in and give excuses and reasons for his responses and actions. Why is one different from the other?

In response to the articles:

The first link has nothing to do with President Bush. It just says that some clerical errors were made in that report that need correcting. It should also be noted that the number that is mentioned as needing correcting in this quote:

Quote:

The April report said attacks had declined last year to 190, down from 198 in 2002 and 346 in 2001. The 2003 figure would have been the lowest level in 34 years and a 45 percent drop since 2001, Bush's first year as president.

is the 2003 figure. I haven’t read the whole report, but from this quote there was a very noticeable and significant decline from 2001 to 2002. (Down 148 to be precise.) The purpose of that article wasn’t about any decline in terrorism. It was just reporting the clerical errors that admittedly slipped through.

The second seems to make the assumption that because these people were appointed to high level jobs under Republican presidents that they were/are Republican themselves. A president can appoint someone that they disagree with politically, or otherwise, to a high level position simply because that person was the best for the job.

As an example of this here is a quote from that article:

Quote:

Phyllis E. Oakley, the deputy State Department spokesman during Reagan's second term and an assistant secretary of state under Clinton

I don’t know whether she is Republican or Democrat but she did serve under two separate presidents of opposing parties.

Others are admittedly democrats and therefore can simply be making an attempt to make their political statement. The article only briefly mentions at the very end what they are basing their complaints on and doesn’t really site any specific examples and their ramifications and how much of an effect they really have on American security. I don’t know their reasons specifically, but I think it’s interesting that the article spent a large amount of space establishing that many of these people served under Republican presidents when a)if they are military they really didn’t have a choice and b) they could have been appointed to their position based on the merit of their qualifications.

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker But if it's true, then the logical question might be, "why?" Why do so many people "bash" Bush?

You’re implying that people who don’t agree with President Bush’s politics wouldn’t “bash” him at all without just cause. Simply disagreeing politically, or even religiously, is enough for some people to respond hostilely towards not only the President but anyone else as well. When people have differing opinions they can try and find things to complain about whether there is factual basis for it or not.

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker Bush's loyalties seem to be to his supporters and pals first. In fact, he's made statements that support this notion such as, "if you're not with us, you're for the terrorists." The implications of that are pretty clear. Those critical of the Bush administration are considered enemies of the state by the admin.

I don’t remember the context of that statement specifically, but I believe he was saying that if someone doesn’t support the war on terrorism they would be for the terrorists, wouldn’t they? Not necessarily supporting his administration, but supporting the war on terrorism, should be common ground across the party lines.

What specific loyalties are you referencing between President Bush and his “pals”?

Also, how does a quote about terrorism have anything to do with said “pals”?

Quote:

Originally posted by ET Warrior On topic, I think the fact that there are THAT many people that rank/ranked so highly in the American Government/military who want Bush ousted speaks volumes. I'm with Skinwalker on this

26 isn’t really very many people when you consider how many thousands of people the government actually consists of. I’m sure there are more that don’t agree with President Bush, but signing and releasing a statement really isn’t anything special, at least given the information presented in that article. They basically appear to be 26 people saying they won’t vote for Bush.

Quote:

Originally posted by ET Warrior Fire the Liar.

Likewise, what specifically do you believe that he lied about?

Quote:

Originally posted by Kain Gotta love it when Republicans don't like to see what their buddy Geedubya is up to.

How are either of those articles directly related to Bush?

Quote:

Originally posted by Kain Hey, at least I wouldn't need baby brother to rob my opponent of the election.

How was there any robbing of the election? The justices of the court were the one’s who decided the recounting, as the Democrats wanted it to be done, was unconstitutional. Not Bush’s brother. In what way do you believe that the election was robbed? (Not to get off topic or anything, but it was brought up.)

The title of this thread is even presumptuous in saying that both these articles are absolute proof of anything.

Even the Democrat who challenged the report said that he accepts that it was unintentional.

Quote:

"He says it wasn't politically motivated so I will accept that," Waxman said after their conversation. [With Colin Powell]

And again, the second isn’t really proof of anything either.

Both of these articles hardly appear to be evidence of any sort that give justification to wanting Bush fired or that the White house is “blowing it”.

unfortunately it is just too much FUN to bash bush. He is just such an easy target that it is always really hard to resist.

Politics these days is almost entirely about personalities and appearance and very little about issues or policies... so when you see politicians and commentators "bashing bush" or "bashing kerry" all the time it is only natural that you tend to follow suit (from whichever side you start on)

It should also be noted that it is much easier to campaign and vote AGAINST something than for it. And as Bush is the current president he has a much higher profile than Kerry and so is an easier target.

As far as ican see it is largely down to the "with us or against us" stance. Anyone who criticises bush seems to be branded as "liberal" and therefore unamerican and not worth listening to. When someone tells you that it is quite likely that you are going to respond on a less intelectual level and "bash bush" as your reasoned arguements have falled on deaf ears and you need to try something less subtle.

It is also the case that a number of people on these forums are from outside america, and bush is universally seen as an idiot (perhaps even to an unfair degree) outside of america.

Originally posted by Noxrepere How was there any robbing of the election? The justices of the court were the one’s who decided the recounting, as the Democrats wanted it to be done, was unconstitutional. Not Bush’s brother. In what way do you believe that the election was robbed?

Any judge can be bought, and the Bush's are swimmin in Texas Tea, especially now that Bush signed that bill to export 25 million gallons of oil out of Iraq, and sell it to Daddy and other oil companys(there all buddies, remember?) for a fraction of the price that they're all going to sell it for. But the war wasn't about oil, now was it?

Quote:

Both of these articles hardly appear to be evidence of any sort that give justification to wanting Bush fired or that the White house is “blowing it"

Prove me wrong when I say that. Bush and company release a report saying 'We're winning people', but some reporter gets curious and wants to see all the numbers. Well, he could either suddenly drop off the face of the planet or Colin Powell can make up the 'It was an accident' story. Of course, asking for secret numbers like that may justify Bush's most idiotic law yet, the Patriot Act, and have Mr Reporter locked away until Bush is out of office and that POS law is abolished.

I can't really tell what time line you're going by there but, yes, on election night, Florida was originally called for Gore. That was due to the media releasing their projected winner before the rest of the state had voted. Florida is in two time zones and therefore the west most portion of the state had not closed the polls yet. That was an irresponsibility on the media’s part.

Even Gore himself originally called Bush and conceded that Bush won and then later called back to say that he wasn't conceding yet.

As far as the recounts go, I can't see how anyone can see that as anything other than one sided in the manner that it was being done. Gore only wanted to recount certain counties within Florida, not the whole state, and "coincidentally" they happened to be predominantly Democratic counties. Who stands to gain more votes if they only recount in democratic counties?

Originally Bush's people were saying that if any recount were going to take place it would be state wide, not just selected counties.

You mention three specific recounts before saying that Bush won. If those recounts only counted more votes in Democratic counties, then Gore would gain more votes, but, again, it was hardly a formal recount.

The justification for the whole recount thing was also based on a margin of error for the counting machines. Both Bush and Gore stood to loose votes because of a margin of error, but it's not like the machines would favor one over the other.

I don't think the recount could have progressed without personal biases leading towards tipping the votes. There were just too many people handling them to say that no one could have changed anything on any of the ballots. The original count was done by impartial machines. Putting humans into the mix only introduced a greater chance of interference. Those who were handling the votes knew that the election was riding on Florida. It just seems too easy for temptations to set in for those directly involved in any recount.

I fail to see how anyone can consider any part of that unfair for anyone other than Bush.

In that article the person who objected to the report was a politician. Again that article says that the 2003 number is in question, and makes no mention of any inaccuracies for the 2001 and 2002 numbers. Seeing as how the numbers from 2001 to 2002 did go down, how is that not a victory?

Quote:

Originally posted by toms It is also the case that a number of people on these forums are from outside America, and bush is universally seen as an idiot (perhaps even to an unfair degree) outside of America.

I would agree with that. Especially the "unfair degree" part. But it's not like people in other countries outside of America aren't subject to receiving biased reports by those who don't agree with Bush's politics. Challenging his intelligence makes a convenient target for them rather than just focusing on the issues.

Quote:

Both of these articles hardly appear to be evidence of any sort that give justification to wanting Bush fired or that the White house is “blowing it"

I was merely saying that neither of these articles alone is enough evidence to warrant any justification of “firing” him. It makes much more sense to just say that you want him fired because you disagree with his politics rather than continually looking for reasons to have him fired.

as for florida... that looks more and more fishy the more you look into it. It wasn't that they fixed the counting, or "fixed" the election as such, but they did as much as possible to make it hard for likely democrat voters to vote.

I can't remember the exact details, but florida passed a law that said felons couldn't vote. Some republican woman (who later ran Bush's campaign) implemented this by basically taking everyone's name off the electoral register if their name was the same as a convicted felon. They didn't even check that it was THE SAME PERSON!

[unsure]I may be wrong on this part, but i think this policy was only implemented in certain counties (those most liekly to vote democrat). [/unsure]

10s of thousands of (mainly poor black) voters therefore turned up to be told that they couldn't vote. Even the returning officer in oneplace found SHE herself couldn't vote as her name was the same as a convicted felon. Of course, it is complete cooincidence that poor black voters mainly vote democrat.

Add to that the county in which all those people mistakenly voted for that right wing guy thinking they were voting for gore. Even he said that that was very unlikely.

Forget the rubbish about recounts, even those votes alone should have given it to gore. And i think that once the recounts were finally done (not including those lost votes, but way after gore had given up) gore won by a fair bit anyway, but by then it was too late.

Sorry, my memory is terrible for names...

Basically, gore threw it away by conceeding defeat. As soon as he did that he came across as the "loser" and always seemed to be the one whining. I'm 90% certain that if he hadn't conceeded defeat early then you would have a different president right now as the recounts would have continued naturally (and without being seen as gore desperately clawing at straws). As i said earlier... politics these days is all about the perception of being right/clever/strong, not the actual truth.
------
I'd like someone to say WHY, if you just looked at their past record and suitability, Bush would even be in the running for Govenor and then President. If it wasn't for his family that is....

First of all, it's a nation wide law in the USA that convicts can't vote. I can't remember at the moment if it's just people who have been in prison or what, but I do know that is nation wide and not just Florida, and certainly not just specific counties in Florida.

Secondly are you implying that the majority of people with the same names as convicts would vote Democrat?

I believe that the reason Gore kept pressing for recounts, even after some recounts had been completed, was because Bush was gaining more votes than Gore, and he wanted to keep recounting until it tipped in his favor (i.e. the “intention” of the voter on ballots that did not have a vote for president specified).

I’m not sure about the accuracy of the complaint about felon name confusion, but even if that were true that wouldn’t specifically favor one candidate over another because having the same name as a felon does not immediately mean that you would vote for Gore. Also, when people register to vote, I believe they use their Social Security number to register and since that is unique for every individual, even if you did have the same name as a felon your SS would still be different. Having the exact same name as a felon seems like it would be incredibly rare anyways, and as I said, it wouldn’t favor one party over the other if people with the same name weren’t allowed to vote.

Originally posted by Noxrepere Secondly are you implying that the majority of convicts would vote Democrat?

No, that has nothing to do with anything. His post was about how they went through and disallowed anyone with the same name as a former convict to vote. It was a big deal in the news coverage of the crap happening in Florida, a LOT of people were denied the ability to vote even though they weren't actually convicted felons, they just shared a same name.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toms 10s of thousands of (mainly poor black) voters therefore turned up to be told that they couldn't vote. Even the returning officer in oneplace found SHE herself couldn't vote as her name was the same as a convicted felon. Of course, it is complete cooincidence that poor black voters mainly vote democrat.

Originally posted by ET Warrior No, that has nothing to do with anything. His post was about how they went through and disallowed anyone with the same name as a former convict to vote. It was a big deal in the news coverage of the crap happening in Florida, a LOT of people were denied the ability to vote even though they weren't actually convicted felons, they just shared a same name.

Quote:

Originally posted by Noxrepere I’m not sure about the accuracy of the complaint about felon name confusion, but even if that were true that wouldn’t specifically favor one candidate over another because having the same name as a felon does not immediately mean that you would vote for Gore. Also, when people register to vote, I believe they use their Social Security number to register and since that is unique for every individual, even if you did have the same name as a felon your SS would still be different. Having the exact same name as a felon seems like it would be incredibly rare anyways, and as I said, it wouldn’t favor one party over the other if people with the same name weren’t allowed to vote.

Sorry about the quote. What I meant to say was:

Quote:

Secondly are you implying that the majority of people with the same names as convicts would vote Democrat?

Sorry for any confusion.

Would all of those people, then, not have received a sample ballot prior to the election if they had been removed from the list?

Wouldn't that have been a problem in prior elections rather than just, coincidentally, the 2000 presidential election?

Like I said, I'm not sure about the accuracy of that name complaint. I believe registering to vote requires more than just your name.

Also, that seems a little odd that those 10's of thousands of people would not only happen to have the same names as convicted felons and as such, not be allowed to vote according to what you said about the names, but also, coincidentally, be predominantly black and poor, and would have voted considerably more for Gore.

Originally posted by Noxrepere Wouldn't that have been a problem in prior elections rather than just, coincidentally, the 2000 presidential election?

Like I said, I'm not sure about the accuracy of that name complaint. I believe registering to vote requires more than just your name.

Also, that seems a little odd that those 10's of thousands of people would not only happen to have the same names as convicted felons and as such, not be allowed to vote according to what you said about the names, but also, coincidentally, be predominantly black and poor, and would have voted considerably more for Gore.

Exactly. You would think all those unlikely cooincidences muight make some people suspicious

It was implemented by a senior republican (wish i could remember her name) who went on to run Bush's campaign. It was implemented in a grossly unfair and uneven way. It was implemented just before the presidential elections.

You probably did need more ID to prove your identity when you went to vote... but it was no use proving your id if your name had already been taken off the voting register by that republican task force.

1. It wasn't implemented uniformly across all the counties in the state.
2. Black people are more likely to vote democrat.
3. Unfortunately, most black people grow up in poorer areas, are more likely to have criminal records and are more likely to have been tagged as being criminals when they infact merely shared a name.

It's one of those things where no actual step could be considered "fixing" the election, but taken as a whole there does definately seem to be a smell of something suspicious in terms of biasing the voting population.

I was talking more specifically about the coincidence that people with the same names as convicts would primarily vote for Gore. That doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

Originally posted by toms Unfortunately, most black people grow up in poorer areas, are more likely to have criminal records and are more likely to have been tagged as being criminals when they infact merely shared a name.

If they are criminals themselves, they would have lost the right to vote already. That has nothing to do with Florida.

Are you saying that people in poor black areas are more likely to share the same name with a criminal than anyone else in any other areas?

This seems to be kind of mute point any ways, because I don't know of any evidence suggesting that anything like that actually happened. I know there were allegations about voter disenfranchisement, but those were nothing more than allegations.

If something had happened I'm pretty sure that it would be very well known. I don't know where you got your information, but it looks like it's mixing several different things together to make something that appears more "serious".

Originally posted by SkinWalker: And "liberal" isn't a bad word... it gets used that way by the more ignorant of the conservative right (some might say fascist)

Originally posted by Noxrepere: Well Fascism, as defined in Webster's New World Dictionary is[: "]a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc...["]

In what way is that related to the Republican Party or conservatism?

"a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship" – The neo-conservative goal of dominating the House, Senate, Federal Judiciary, and Executive branch, doesn't smell of that? I won't pretend that the Democratic Party's goal is much different, but the Democratic Party (since FDR) hasn't demonstrated that it's policies are to limit civil rights and ignore the working class to the extent that the Republican Party has. The neo-cons have few of the traditional Republican goals like reduction of government (Reagan Conservatives were adamantly opposed to increasing the size of government), instead, their goal is power (Paul, 2003).

forcible suppression of the opposition – We see it overtly in foreign policy: strong arm tactics with the UN, authorizing torture tactics of "enemy combatants" (Gonzales, 2002), etc. But we also see it subtly in little manipulations of the press, policy, or even corporate levels: Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day. (60 Minutes, 2004)

belligerent nationalism – "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists. (Bush, 2002); and John Ashcroft (2001) citing that "those that oppose us [in creating the Patriot Act II] are providing aid and comfort to the enemy." "Aid and comfort to the enemy," coincidently, is the exact words that describe treason in the Constitution. The implication is clear: belligerent nationalism, dissent unwelcome and unpatriotic.

racism – Redistricting by the Republican dominated houses and senates of the U.S. as well as states like North Carolina, Calif., and Texas, raise some serious concerns about racism (Garrett & Slover, 2004). It may be incidental and/or accidental, but the fact remains that formerly democratic districts comprised of African American and Hispanic voters are being broken up and are finding themselves with Republican majorities. The process effectively breaks up less affluent communities and gives their newly created portions to the more affluent ones. The reasons why these communities had such strong Democratic voter bases to begin with is because they lacked the infrastructures that the rich communities obtained, such as city water and sewage obtained by the Oak Cliff area of Dallas, TX in the last few decades. Now their votes will pale in significance and the affluent neighborhoods can get their diverted funds back. At least that's the perception in D/FW.

militarism – hmmm... need I really go there?

While I wouldn't necessarily state that the neo-conservatives of the Republican Party are fascist, I would definitely say they lean hard in that direction.

Quote:

Originally posted by Noxrepere: By your explanation though, you’re implying that not only are the conservatives opposed to all change, but also that the liberals are open to all change. That simply is not the case. The terms merely represent that, generally, the liberals are open to change in certain areas and the conservatives are opposed to change in those areas. [...] Someone who is liberal might not consider that word to be a derogatory representation of their beliefs and opinions.

I was simply implying that conservatives are generally opposed to change and prefer the status quo, while liberals generally seek change for the sake of progress. I wasn't attempting to assign any right or wrong to either viewpoint. They both have their places. The neo-conservatives, however, do seek change and larger government, and I think that's important for everyone to take note of.

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker: So a happy median is to be a conservative democrat or a liberal republican.

Originally posted by Noxrepere: So basically that already exists. The opinions differ on both sides on what should be changed, and how, and what should be left alone. [...] Also, the term “conservative” can, likewise, be thrown around in a negative light, and has even been done on this board.

Conservative can, and is, often used in a derogatory manner, however, not nearly to the degree that liberal is. I think you'll have to agree that "damn liberal" is used with far greater frequency than "damn conservative." Moreover, there are far more compound terms in use to increase it's derogatory nature than with conservative: i.e. "bleeding heart" and "liberal media."

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker: I for one do not agree with allowing someone that is willing to allow themselves to be bought and paid for by groups like the Christian Coalition, Religious Right, and corporations like Haliburton.

Originally posted by Noxrepere: Here you’re implying that President Bush didn’t already agree with their stances and merely changed his opinions and actions to garner their support.

Pat Robertson "hand-picked more than 30 Bush campaign leaders" (Jackson, 1997) for George H. Bush. One has to assume that many of the same connections exist with the Christian Coalition in George W. Bush's administration. Indeed, many of the Bush policies appear to be direct from the Pat Robertson "handbook" (if one existed) and rest on the same superstitious belief systems and pseudoscientific decisions. Likewise for his corporate connections to Haliburton, Enron, etc. Bush certainly had some harsh words to say about Kenneth Lay, but that didn't prevent him from accepting his money, advice and counsel prior to the energy companies fall from grace.

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker: Fire the Liar.

Originally posted by Noxrepere: Specifically, what do you believe he lied about that has led you to believe that he should be fired?

Beliefs have little to do with it. I rely on the evidence and will only list a very few. If you would like me to go on, simply ask. It must be noted, however, that I equate "Bush Lies" to be "lies of Bush administration officials" as well. They're his people and his responsibility. If he didn't agree with what they said, he should have made the correction in public.

Condeleeza Rice (03.22.04) - “the fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this [Al Qaeda] before 9/11” – yet Dr. Rice's 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush's top foreign affairs priorities fails to mention Al Qaeda; The Dept. of Justice's Seven Strategic Goals didn't include terrorism prior to 9/11; A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism. (Woodruff, 2001).

That there were significant ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq/Hussein – these simply did not exist beyond perhaps members of Al Qaeda traveling through Iraq. No evidence exists to suggest (Shovelan, 2004) that Hussein funded, supported, or even liked Al Qaeda.

Iraq had significant quantities of WMD stockpiled. – None found. Indeed, science dictates that the "vast stockpiles" of anthrax that the Bush admin claimed were "still on the books" no longer existed, since their shelf life is approximately three years under ideal conditions. Moreover, the facility used to create the anthrax was blown up in 1996. By 2003, any stored anthrax was not viable. A similar condition existed for the VX nerve agent. Even binary weaponization of sarin has a limited shelf life. The Bush admin's pseudoscience is becoming legendary, however, when this is compared and contrasted to their stand on stem cell research, therapeutic cloning, effectiveness of condoms, and environmental issues.

"My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." –George W. Bush, April 26, 2003 - According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Lee & Greenstein, 2003), an unspecified number of low- and middle-income families received no tax cut at all because they'd been excluded from an expansion of the child-care tax.

On Harken Oil and it's impending failure: "I absolutely had no idea and would not have sold it had I known." – SEC records demonstrate the contrary. Bush not only knew, he warned Harken board members two months prior to the sell-off (Lazarus, 2002).

One last lie that I can only offer anecdote about: Governor Bush claimed in 1997 that he had no intention of using the gubernatorial seat of Texas as a "stepping-stone" to the Whitehouse. – I actually believed him and voted for him then. I won't make that mistake again.

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker: But if it's true, then the logical question might be, "why?" Why do so many people "bash" Bush?

Originally posted by Noxrepere: You’re implying that people who don’t agree with President Bush’s politics wouldn’t “bash” him at all without just cause. Simply disagreeing politically, or even religiously, is enough for some people to respond hostilely towards not only the President but anyone else as well. When people have differing opinions they can try and find things to complain about whether there is factual basis for it or not.

My complaints about Bush are nearly entirely factually based. With one exception: I dislike his attitude/personality, which seems to be condescending and elitist. But that latter is only my personal opinion.

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker: Bush's loyalties seem to be to his supporters and pals first.

Originally posted by Noxrepere: I don’t remember the context of that statement specifically ["if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists], but I believe he was saying that if someone doesn’t support the war on terrorism they would be for the terrorists, wouldn’t they?

What he was implying then, and what he and his administration officials implied at later dates, was that there exists a dichotomy: either you support the administration or you are a traitor; that dissent is traitorous; that by not offering logistical and military support as a nation to the Iraqi invasion, your nation supports Al Qaeda. It was deceptive. It was a lie. His loyalties aren't to the American people, they're to the corporations and organizations that keep he and his kind in power.

Quote:

Originally posted by Noxrepere: Not necessarily supporting his administration, but supporting the war on terrorism, should be common ground across the party lines.

Indeed. Which is why we should have kept our focus there and not on the Iraq conflict, which is where the neo-conservatives have had their sights set even before 9/11. If we would have put the time, effort, money and political capital (which we squandered) into the terrorist question and not wasted each on the Iraqi one, we could likely have affected change in both. Diplomacy is what works in the Middle East, not strong-arm tactics. History has shown this to be true.

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker: On topic, I think the fact that there are THAT many people that rank/ranked so highly in the American Government/military who want Bush ousted speaks volumes. I'm with SkinWalker on this

Originally posted by Noxrepere: 26 isn’t really very many people when you consider how many thousands of people the government actually consists of. I’m sure there are more that don’t agree with President Bush, but signing and releasing a statement really isn’t anything special, at least given the information presented in that article. They basically appear to be 26 people saying they won’t vote for Bush.

It's not necessarily the quantity of people as it is the quality of them. These 26 people appear to have had access to position and knowledge that gives their allegations and opinions credibility. Like it or not, this will probably have an affect on the public opinion if the media picks it up now that the Reagan passing is out of the news.

Lee, A. & Greenstein, R. (May 29, 2003). How The New Tax Law Alters The Child Tax Credit And How Low-Income Families Are Affected. Center on Budget and Policy Prioritieshttp://www.cbpp.org/5-28-03tax3.htm

Originally posted by Noxrepere I was talking more specifically about the coincidence that people with the same names as convicts would primarily vote for Gore. That doesn't make any sense.

If they are criminals themselves, they would have lost the right to vote already. That has nothing to do with Florida.

Are you saying that people in poor black areas are more likely to share the same name with a criminal than anyone else in any other areas?

This seems to be kind of mute point any ways, because I don't know of any evidence suggesting that anything like that actually happened. I know there were allegations about voter disenfranchisement, but those were nothing more than allegations.

Mary Frances Berry, chairwoman of the US Commission on Civil Rights, reported that the Florida Legislature was stalling in its investigation into the disenfranchisement of voters in the state early in March 2001 (Kenyon, 2001). She cited "an array of serious problems: voter roll purges that removed legal voters along with convicted felons; an unauthorized police checkpoint set up on Election Day; and a variety of training and resource shortages that appeared to hit largely minority districts the hardest."

CNN has filed suit (Royse, 2004) with the State of Florida to obtain a list of names of potential felons to be removed from the voting list to compare for past and future mistakes. CNN also noted that there were widespread accusations of voters being confused with felons even though they had not committed felonies.

The US Commission on Civil Rights (2001) found that there was a positive relationship between race and voter disenfranchisement. Counties with higher minority populations were more likely to have voting systems with higher ballot rejection rates than the more affluent counties of white populations. Nine of the ten counties with the highest African American populations had rejection rates above the Florida average.

According to a study done by Hines at the Southern University and A & M College (2002), thousands of voters faced unnecessary purges, which affected many non-felons but struck ex-felons the hardest (a 1998 court decision required that the state of Florida recognize the rights of many ex-felons). Due to this and other factors, Hines concluded that blacks were ten times more likely than other voters to have their ballots rejected. In 2000, Florida saw an increase in both black Democrats and Republicans, but the increase of black Democrats was 10 to 1 over Republican - an increase that was probably due to several factors, one being the removal of Florida's affirmative action laws (Walter, 2001).

There's plenty of evidence of voter disenfranchisement if you look. The problem is, no one wants to look or believe that this kind of thing can still go on in the United States. And I didn't even list the sources I had noticed on State Police road blocks preventing voters from getting to the polls.